From: Philip Dunn (pscumnud@DIRCON.CO.UK)
Date: Mon Nov 24 2003 - 13:33:47 EST
Hi Jerry Quoting gerald_a_levy <gerald_a_levy@MSN.COM>: > > If money is an equivalent then there must be an equality such as: > > the value of the procuded commodity = the value of the money it sells for > > Price value deviations are therefore impossible. > > This is the case only in the aggregate abstracting from temporal and > spatial deviations. OK. We have got two different notions of equivalance, hard and soft. The hard version says that whenever a product is sold, the seller gets an equivalent amount of money. The soft version says that the seller does not get an equivalent amount of money, or only does so by chance. Is money really an equivalent in the soft version? Is it a reasonable use of the term? An unequal equivalent? Phil
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 26 2003 - 00:00:01 EST